can't decode what subspecies. please help

[petalka]

hi all
I can't decode what subspecies these are.
Great if you could help.

1. Gymnocalycium ...
2. Gymnocalycium ...
3. Echinopsis ...
4. Parodia ...
5. Sulcorebutia ...

greets

[Spikylover]

1. Gymnocalycium damsii
2. G. quehlianum or baldianum
3. Pseudolobivia mammillosa
4. Could be rutilans but we can't know without flowers
5. Why not post after it flowers?

[7george]

5. Possibly S. steinbachii.

[petalka]

thank you!
Indeed 4.could be the Parodia rutilans.
Flowers similar, look at the picture...

[DaveW]

Number 4 is not Parodia (Notocactus) rutilans since that has a pinkish flower and usually remains single headed. The name rutilans means "reddish", but not sure if it relates to the spines or flower? N. rutilans is one of the N. muller-melchersii group. Your plant is what would have been called a Notocactus before being lumped into Parodia, therefore you may find it quicker looking under Notocactus since that will narrow the field down.

http://www.llifle.com/Encyclopedia/CACT ... s_rutilans

https://www.plantsworld.in/product/notocactus-rutilans/

[petalka]

ad.5 - I place flowering as proposed; does it help which Sulcorebutia it is ?

IMG_4662.JPG (107.94 KiB) Viewed 1725 times

[mmcavall]

Just an additional information: when you ask the name of the subspecies I think you mean "species", not subspecies .

For example:
In Parodia magnifica
Parodia is the name of the genus (plural : genera)
magnifica is the name of the species

If there are recognizable categories within the species, they may be "subspecies" (a botanical sub category) or "varieties" (a horticultural sub category - I may be wrong at this point).

In Mammillaria decipiens subsp. camptotricha:
Mammillaria = genus
decipiens = species
camptotricha = a subspecies of M. decipiens

I thought it worth explain since you have been asking for subspecies identification but the answers you get back are the name of the species.

[DaveW]

We still theoretically have varieties and forms available in botany. However Botany now seems to have followed Zoology in mainly distinguishing plants only down to the level of species and subspecies. Most of the original varieties, if still considered relevant, have now been elevated to subspecies by new combinations. However again it is not automatic to change a published variety to subspecies, it still needs a new validly published combination under the "Rules".

From the Web:-

"Infraspecific classification of plants continues to be practiced commonly by taxonomists: c. 8% of species monographed in 26 major journals and series during the period 1987-1990 were subdivided. Of those, c. 42% were divided into subspecies only, 52% into varieties, 3% into formae, and 3% into taxa of more than one level. Subspecies and varieties are usually defined as requiring some integrity -- geographic, ecologic, and/or phylogenetic -- beyond the morphological. Despite some attempts to differentiate between subspecies and variety, they are largely equivalent in practice. European taxonomists tend to favor subspecies, whereas their counterparts in the United States usually employ variety. Formae usually are defined as lacking any extramorphological integrity. Given the general inconsistency of practice found, it is imperative that more authors state briefly their philosophy of infraspecific taxonomy so their classifications may be interpreted more clearly. Taxonomists collectively should promote greater standardization of infraspecific classification."

Botany never seems to reach a global consensus. At one time of day there was an American Botanical Code and a European one, but they both eventually merged. The main difference you may see in older American books to the present Code is that subspecific proper names such as those of people would be capitalised = Mammillaria Wildii, whereas now all subgeneric names use lower case letters so they are not mistaken for generic names = Mammillaria wildii, so if somebody just wrote "I have a wildii" you would know it was a species referred to and not a genus called "Wildii".

A quote from the first link below:-

"The 1930, Cambridge Congress (resulting in the 1935, Cambridge Rules, aka the International Rules, ed. 3)was again very notable, a place for major reconciliation: the clash with the adherents of the American Code was resolved."

https://www.iapt-taxon.org/historic/history.htm

https://forums.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/t ... ety.91693/

[petalka]

Thank you both for detailed elaboration.
Seems I follow the European taxonomist, being from Europe

btw: any idea what subspecies or variety this Sulco could be ?
I have it since already some time however can't ID...

[mmcavall]

btw: any idea what subspecies or variety this Sulco could be ?

Subspecies or species?
Do you know which species it is?

Anyway, sorry, I can't help you. Nice plant!

[DaveW]

What you are really asking Petalka is what species it is, since you already know it belongs to the genus Sulcorebutia. It only become relevant to know what subspecies or variety it is if the species has been validly subdivided to lesser ranks. "Sub" means below = a lesser rank, as in subdivision or subsection, even subway = below ground, or submarine = below the sea, therefore a subspecies is a rank or division below a species.

In identification keys a type form having other varieties or forms is sometimes written out fully as say Eriosyce napina ssp. napina to indicate it is the original type form, with say any lower ranks listed below as say Eriosyce napina ssp. challensis. In theory the name of the type form can be written out in as many lower ranks as are needed, ad infinitum, to indicate it is the type form = Eriosyce napina ssp napina v. napina f. napina, but usually we only need to write the specific name in the case of the type form and ignore the lower ranks.

There are so many Sulco's that look similar. I have about 20 and I would have a job naming most if I lost the label. Hopefully somebody who specialises in them or knows the plant can tell you what species it is.

[petalka]

Exactly, this is what I exactly meant - knowing the species, wanted to know the level below.
Thank you DaveW for clarification.